New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-11-26
THE STANDARD OIL CASES
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COMMISSION.

p.upo,n OFFICIALS on THE RELATIVE MERITS OF
TANK AND BARREL TRANSFORMATION.
w,suNeros. Nov 25.-B F. Mitchell. general freight
,oent of the Western Division Of the Newport News and
Mississippi Valley Railroad Company, was the first Wit
rcss xanncd to-day before tho Interstate Commission
., sopnection with the Standard OH His testimony
was Substantially like that OF the other freight who
preceded him. Among ether things the witness said
th,t his company had invariably based their charges for
hauling oil tanks upon the irrespective OF its capoc
ity or contents.
Therenpon counsel produced n copy of letter. the
signature of which the witness acknowledged. written 10
the complainant. giving him rate tank Of the
capacity Of 90 0OD pounds and rate on the excess,
The witness thought this clerical error
John Z. Gault. general manager Of the Cincinnati
NewOreans and Texas Pacific Railroad. was sworn ana
examined
Some questions were asked with respect to the rela
tons between witnesses road and tho Louisville and
Nashville. Witness replied in general way that they
friendly but IT developed that there had been
disagreement in policy owing TO the determination oil
witnesses company to give strict Interpretation 10 the
Interstate Commerce law. while he WAS cosnzant OF
determination on the part OF the management OF tho
other road practically ignore the long and short haul
feature Of the law the theory that the "crcum-
starces and conditions always such as to justify
the rates
General Freight Agent +. W. How, Of the Louisville,
New Orleans and Texas Railroad. was briefly examined
tanks and oil in barrels
ID. B. Mercy. OF NewOrleans, general freight agent
southern division of the Illinois Central Railroad. was
sworn and examined. To all points except Ncw-Orlcans
he said the rates per hundred pounds were the same
upon oil in tanks barrels AS matter OF fact. New
Orleans was. however, the only point TO which oil was
carried in tanks on II was developed
that the Standard Oil Company is net the only,
nor the principal shipper In tanks; us shipments
within the time covered by the complaint peihs H'e
tanks against thirty -fsur carried for others
II G.. Pierce, of the Waters Pierce OH Company. OF
st Louis submitted certain documentary information
called for by subpoena.
o. g. Murray. freight traffic manager OF the St Louis.
Iron Mountain southern read. submitted papers
called for by subpoena and testified. ,
Bundred. OF Oil CITY, general agent OF the Green
Line. the oil transportation line OF the PehnsyVaha
Railroad, was examined He testified that he had
shipped Il 100000 barrels or oil within the last nVe
years III tank against 2.OOO.OOO In barrels ne
less the III the TANK cars ne
ing ten-thsusandtns or the quantity shppeu aS
against two te susandhs in barrels In shipping OIL
to the seaboard the nnsylvania Company makes no
differences in charges whether in tanks or barrels Inc
companys tanks are all watergauged ana the capacity
pounds including the barrel while in tank 3l5 pounds
In a tank is charged for at barrel rates,
cross-eXamnati0n the greater proportenate loss Ia
tank unexplained in part by the statement tna
INV weakness IL apt to be pulled apart IN wIich
oil would suffer greater loss IN tank car than
E. l. Russell general counsel of the Mobile and Ohio
Railroad Company. put in plea that the company mas
changed the rates of which complaint was made.
for Mr. Rice have agreed that there Is ne com
plant against the cOspanys new rates ana that the
only remaining ground OF complaint Is that less is
charged Louis and Cairo 10 Mobile than 10 lu-
termedate points Upon this point the road claims that
water competition justifes the lesser long haul rate